Just stating my observations.Argumentum ad populum, appeal to the masses, etc.
Just stating my observations.Argumentum ad populum, appeal to the masses, etc.
I will also say that I have met gun owners and non-gun owners alike who share my sentiments concerning this.
That there's obviously a difference of opinions here. You've seen non-gun owners who are ok with this? Most people I've conferred with don't look at it too favorably.Same here. What does that mean?
That there's obviously a difference of opinions here. You've seen non-gun owners who are ok with this? Most people I've conferred with don't look at it too favorably.
That there's obviously a difference of opinions here. You've seen non-gun owners who are ok with this? Most people I've conferred with don't look at it too favorably.
I never said they were. However, it's the populous that elects our officials. Now if some favorable outcomes came from these protests that came to outweigh the negative publicity that followed them, then it would make for a different argument. I'm not saying such a possibility is out of the question, I am saying that some positive actions do need to take place in order for such protests to be effect. It's like any protest really.What it means is it has absolutely no bearing on exercising our God given rights. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.
Rights aren't subordinated to popularity.
I never said they were. However, it's the populous that elects our officials. Now if some favorable outcomes came from these protests that came to outweigh the negative publicity that followed them, then it would make for a different argument. I'm not saying such a possibility is out of the question, I am saying that some positive actions do need to take place in order for such protests to be effect. It's like any protest really.
Furthermore, I'd just like to say that as we all know, due to the negative publicity that followed these protests man companies banned all firearms in their establishments. Now, of course we know that those bans hold no weight of law here in Indiana, however, they do in other states where these corporations have other stores. If all firearms are banned in those said establishments, are t gun rights ultimately hurt? And once again, I speak of the ones where gun bans hold the weight of law. I just want to finish with I know that the right to carry is a God given right, however, if it is effectively against the law then I'm sure lawful gun owners (as we all profess to be) aren't going to carry in those places. I fail to see how such a protest in Texas adds gun rights if they damage them in other states where such bans are enforceable.
I'm pretty sure jack in the box and sonic flat out banned firearms. I'm of the opinion that you are responsible for your own self defense and if you go to a public place to spend money you are still just as responsible. Besides, aren't we talking about God given rights here? Don't tell me now you guys are going to tell me how wrong I am because property rights now come into play. If so, the while debate about open rifle carry in a public place is now defunct. It can't go both ways guys. If you're going to throw in how private property rights now trump other rights reserved to the individual citizens then how did the OC Texas protest have any clout whatsoever? I'm not sure I understand your point questioning what rights we have on private establishments since you disagree with all my previous points.Which companies BANNED firearms from their establishments vs simply asked customers to not bring them in? Also, do you have "gun rights" on private property? Do you have First, Second, etc. Amendment rights protecting against infringement from property owners?
I'm pretty sure jack in the box and sonic flat out banned firearms.
I know we're already over 200 posts into the topic, but don't you think you should have figured all this stuff out before you got into it?
I mean, I like a good discussion as much as the next guy, but you're passing so much bum scoop in this thread it's comical that you're still coming back for more.
And the fact that you didn't comment on my last point is hilarous. First, you disagree with me about my stance on the open rifle carry fiasco then you try to say that private property rights trump personal gun rights (I'm assuming that those questions at the end of your previous post that I quotes are the rhetorical in nature) and have yet to clarify what you meant when I clearly stated I was confused. And what right isn't of yours to tell me that my points are "bum scoop" and imply that yours are pure wisdom from God? Yes, I have my stuff figured out sir, as far as I knew it's how you had a civil discussion. Now that you try and not only question my credibility, but flat out insult me (mostly because you disagree with me) I'm beginning to question any validity you have beyond this point. I learned long ago that insulting the ther side of the debate/discussion is the same as admitting defeat in which it was my understanding that the point of this discussion wasn't to win some petty contest. I must ask you to clarify your last post. I was under the impression that I was replying to your opinions with opinions of my own becasue we were discussing the controversial matter at hand but the fact that you say that it's "comical I keep coming back for me" imply a that this is in fact not a mature conversation in the slightest.I know we're already over 200 posts into the topic, but don't you think you should have figured all this stuff out before you got into it?
I mean, I like a good discussion as much as the next guy, but you're passing so much bum scoop in this thread it's comical that you're still coming back for more.
01000110 01110010 01100101 01100101 01100100 01101111 01101101 00100000 01000110 01101001 01110010 01110011 01110100 00101100 00100000 01000011 01101111 01101110 01100100 01100101 01101101 01101110 00100000 01000011 01101111 01101110 01100110 01101111 01110010 01101101 01101001 01110100 01111001
And the fact that you didn't comment on my last point is hilarous. First, you disagree with me about my stance on the open rifle carry fiasco then you try to say that private property rights trump personal gun rights (I'm assuming that those questions at the end of your previous post that I quotes are the rhetorical in nature) and have yet to clarify what you meant when I clearly stated I was confused. And what right isn't of yours to tell me that my points are "bum scoop" and imply that yours are pure wisdom from God? Yes, I have my stuff figured out sir, as far as I knew it's how you had a civil discussion. Now that you try and not only question my credibility, but flat out insult me (mostly because you disagree with me) I'm beginning to question any validity you have beyond this point. I learned long ago that insulting the ther side of the debate/discussion is the same as admitting defeat in which it was my understanding that the point of this discussion wasn't to win some petty contest. I must ask you to clarify your last post. I was under the impression that I was replying to your opinions with opinions of my own becasue we were discussing the controversial matter at hand but the fact that you say that it's "comical I keep coming back for me" imply a that this is in fact not a mature conversation in the slightest.
And this is how we can separate the men from the boys. Or in this case, the ones who based their position on one of liberty or just cowardly fear of the reprisal of popularity backlash.Whether their opinion of an action is favorable or not, principle still leads many people to support even actions they do not personally favor.
It is the difference in underlying principles that I'd be curious to hear about, opinions are a dime a dozen.
Must spread the rep around. I have been beating this drum since this whole OC Texas thing started. The facts apparently are not relevant to some people.Which companies BANNED firearms from their establishments vs simply asked customers to not bring them in? Also, do you have "gun rights" on private property? Do you have First, Second, etc. Amendment rights protecting against infringement from property owners?
I'm pretty sure jack in the box and sonic flat out banned firearms. I'm of the opinion that you are responsible for your own self defense and if you go to a public place to spend money you are still just as responsible. Besides, aren't we talking about God given rights here? Don't tell me now you guys are going to tell me how wrong I am because property rights now come into play. If so, the while debate about open rifle carry in a public place is now defunct. It can't go both ways guys. If you're going to throw in how private property rights now trump other rights reserved to the individual citizens then how did the OC Texas protest have any clout whatsoever? I'm not sure I understand your point questioning what rights we have on private establishments since you disagree with all my previous points.